A Dangerous
Conceit
By Dr Shireen M Mazari
The fatal accident
in Kabul on May 29 in which an American military
vehicle rammed into traffic and caused death and
injury to many Afghans has resulted in the first
major public backlash against the Americans. To
add to the anger of the local Afghans, the US forces
and Afghan police then fired in the air and into
a crowd of protesters. The protests of the Afghans,
which also involved the burning of local police
stations, have an ominous familiarity to them.
One is reminded of Iraq where Iraqis have been targeting
and killing local police to protest against the
American occupation as well as the abuse of Iraqi
civilians and prisoners. Equally critical is the
familiar pattern of arrogant behavior of the Americans
towards the local population that is caused by their
frustration at being unable to achieve stability
in both Iraq and, increasingly of late, Afghanistan.
Just a few days before this accident in Kabul, President
Karzai had taken time out from haranguing against
Pakistan and criticized the Americans for killing
Afghan civilians in a bombing raid. And now we have
this incident where an American armored vehicle
rammed into cars in a traffic jam in Kabul. Clearly,
the only way one can ram into cars in a traffic
jam is to be driving totally recklessly with no
regard for anyone else. This is reflective of the
growing arrogance one finds in Americans in terms
of their attitude towards Iraqis and Afghans in
particular, and Muslims in general. There are continuing
reports of American abuse of Iraqi prisoners and
despite that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
has again said that dogs will continue to be used
in Iraqi prisons. New reports also point to the
deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by US forces
in locations other than Fallujah. And now there
are now reports that many of those incarcerated
in Guantanamo Bay were taken prisoner when they
were still minors.
In Afghanistan, it seems the same conceit is setting
in and this is reflected even in the retired military
personnel who continue to work for the US military
as consultants. Last week, one was subjected to
one such person who clearly had forgotten that he
had crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan and that
we were free people under no occupation force. Ostensibly
here for discussions and to hear Pakistani perspectives
on the problems relating to Afghanistan, it was
clear from the outset that the gentleman had no
intention of hearing anything contrary to his preconceived
notions. Pakistan's concerns over Afghan refugees
or the questionable Indian presence in Afghanistan's
border areas with Pakistan matter little, it would
appear, to the US. Worse still, the man's demeanor
reflected the same arrogance and disregard for locals
that has been evident in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and
Afghanistan. To some extent that is why the terrorists
are not being denied political and operational space
-- in fact they have gained more space since the
invasion of Iraq.
It is also this American attitude that has upped
the ante over Iran, with the US least bothered about
its non-accommodative and discriminatory approach
towards Iran as contrasted with its conciliatory
approach towards North Korea where dialogue is seen
as the way forward to conflict resolution. North
Korea had left the NPT and declared itself to be
a nuclear state and still the US opted for dialogue.
In the case of Iran, the US is not prepared to hear
of any dialogue even though Iran has not left the
NPT and continues to insist that it has no intention
of producing nuclear weapons. Whatever the worth
of that declared intention, it should be possible
to accommodate Iran through dialogue involving the
US -- but for the latter's attitude. Or does being
a Muslim state affect the American psyche so much?
The conceit one presently finds among the neo-cons
is not restricted to the Bush Administration only.
Recently, a member of the American Enterprise Institute
was in Malaysia holding forth on what moderate and
progressive Islam should be. Clearly, dialogue is
not possible with the Americans because their arrogance
only allows for a monologue. Anything else they
regard as "unhelpful", if not totally
unacceptable. Why should Pakistan be concerned about
this rising tide of American political and military
arrogance? Because we are already seeing it being
used against us periodically. As some of us had
been predicting, the A.Q. Khan issue was not going
to go away because of his confession on television
and our extensive -– some would say excessive
-– cooperation with the IAEA. Despite all
this, we continue to have the Western media and
American Congressmen raise the A.Q. Khan issue -–
and this time coincidentally just when the Indo-US
nuclear deal is facing problems in the US Congress.
Are the US Congressmen truly unaware of India's
proliferation record, including in connection with
Iran, or of the European links to the A.Q. Khan
network, or is Pakistan-bashing at one level or
another a favorite pastime of these people? If they
are not holding forth against us on Afghanistan
(recall the recent remarks of the US State Department's
coordinator for counter-terrorism that Pakistan
is not doing enough to help root out Taliban and
al-Qaeda leaders), then the proliferation issue
ad nauseum raises its head.
Even more dangerous is the growing instability that
the arrogance of the Bush Administration is causing,
which sees pre-emption as its legitimate right despite
international laws to the contrary. For Pakistan,
this threat of destabilization is heightened not
only by a lack of stability in Afghanistan but also
by the overt efforts to impose regime change in
Iran. Not only has the US announced the setting
up of a fund to overthrow the regime in Iran, it
also seems to be working on bringing together Iranian
dissidents in the region. A BBC report of May 29
on the violence in Iraq said that a bus carrying
Iraqi laborers had been targeted by terrorists and
these poor workers were working in a camp set up
in Iraq by the US for Iranian dissidents.
At the end of the day, it is the average long-suffering
Muslim citizens who continue to suffer the costs
of the war on terror, where they are victims twice
over -- from the extremists in their midst who violate
their lives and their religion and from the Americans
who care not a hoot for their aspirations as they
occupy their lands. And then they are also caught
in the crossfire of the Americans and those who,
for whatever reason, choose to fight their occupation
and/or their presence on their soil. As the incident
in Kabul showed only too clearly, this is a battle
in which the main casualty is the average person
in the streets.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies, Islamabad. Courtesy The News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
